F. BREWSTER (Barbados): The Barbados delegation wishes to support document CL 82/22 setting out the recommendations coming from the Seventeenth FAO Regional Conference in Latin America recently held in Nicaragua. The region for some time now has been using the name "Latin America and the Caribbean" in an informal way and this paper now seeks to have this name formalized in the future records of FAO. This is not an unusual exercise. Paragraph 3 of the document draws attention to precedents for changes in the name of the Organization. Everyone is aware that the region as a whole has undergone much growth and change in the composition of its Member states. At the inception of FAO in 1945 there were 19 countries in the Latin American region. Between 1951 and 1981 another 10 countries have joined and participate in the activities of the Group as a whole. The Council has recently agreed to the membership of two additional Caribbean states. We therefore have for all practical purposes 12 new states in the Caribbean as members of the Latin American and Caribbean group.

The change of name would truly reflect the actual composition of the totality of Member states. I believe that the area identified and intimately known as the Caribbean throughout the world has been playing its part and, as the Barbados Minister of Agriculture said in Managua, sometimes out of pro­portion to its size in global development in general and in Latin American and Caribbean affairs in particular.

I do not think I should say anything further on this item, except that the change of name will not lead Member States or FAO into additional expenditure. Also the change of name should not be seen as simply stylistic and of little importance. Further the change of name does not introduce any concept of geographical disunity of the area, but on the contrary it would formally provide an accu­rate description of all countries now cooperating in the work of the region as a whole.

M. KRIESBERG (United States of America): The United States wishes to join the previous speakers in concurring in the proposed change of name for this important region. When the suggestion was first made during the Regional Conference in Managua the United States joined representatives from other countries there in embracing the idea. The Caribbean is an area in which the United States has em­barked on a major new effort of assistance and trade measures to enhance development. President Reagan personally announced the new initiative in a special meeting of the OAS early this year. Our close geographic proximity, a similar language, and ties furthered by the movement of peoples as well as goods have long meant that the Caribbean had a special place in the interests, and indeed the affections, for many of our people in the United States. For all these reasons the United States welcomes this new recognition for the peoples and nations of the area.

Miss V.E. BETTON (Observer for Jamaica): The Observer delegation of Jamaica wishes to associate itself with other speakers who have spoken in support of this proposal before the Council to change the name of the FAO region"Latin America"to"Latin America and the Caribbean"and that the Regional Conference be called"Regional Conference for Latin America and the Caribbean" as contained in docu­ment CL 82/22 and endorsed by the regional meeting held in Managua recently.

My delegation, like the delegation of Barbados, also sees this proposal as merely formalizing the name"Latin America and the Caribbean Region" which has been used informally for a long time. It does not imply any inconsistency with the unity and cooperation which has existed within the region of the Latin American and Caribbean countries.

As stated by the delegation of Barbados, along with the 19 Latin American countries participating in this region over the past few years, there are now 10 Caribbean countries in this region, with the possibility of two more countries participating in the near future. The name''Latin America and the Caribbean"i8 therefore a reality which should be formally reflected in the record. It will be recalled that there have been precedents within FAO where the Council has found it necessary to change the name of other regions. Indeed the document under reference shows in paragraph 3 an exam­ple of such a change. It is in this spirit that my delegation fully supports this proposal for adoption by the Council.

CHAIRMAN: We adopt the proposal and invite the FAO Conference to endorse the change, namely the title will become"Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean"

P.J. SKOUFIS (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): Document CL 82/24, Appointment of Member Governments1 Representative to the Staff Pension Committee, covers the item before you at the present time. However, I would like to add that the UN pension system is adminis­tered on a tripartite basis by the United Nations Pension Board and at the local level, that is, here in FAO, by an organization's Pension Committee. These Pension Committees exist among all of the UN organizations. One-third of the membership of the FAO Pension Committee is elected by popu­lar vote of the participants, one-third of the Committee is appointed by the Director-General and one-third is appointed by the Conference. Each of these three sectors has three members and three alternates. The 21 members that comprise the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board are drawn from the membership of the local Committees, and FAO has two seats on the Joint Staff Pension Board.

Because of the heavy commitments of our Conference delegates to attend other meetings of FAO, it is vital to have a full complement of Conference Members on the Staff Pension Committee, and it is necessary for all sectors to be present to institute a quorum.

Shri Ramadhar of India, appointed by the Conference for the term 1 January 1982 to 31 December 1983, has now departed from Rome on reassignment. Therefore, a successor is needed to serve for Shri Rama­dhar' s unexpired term that is to 31 December 1983.

In 1955, the Eighth Session of the Conference delegated to the Council authority to appoint replace­ments to the Conference-appointed Members, and the Council is called upon today to fill this vacancy on an interim basis.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany): My delegation takes great pleasure in proposing that the distinguished delegate of Denmark, J. Glistrup, Permanent Representative of his country to FAO, should be appoin­ted as a Member Governments' Representative to the Staff Pension Committee. Mr. Glistrup is very well known to Council and Conference delegations as well as to the Secretariat's staff.

He has a broad experience in international cooperation and a profound knowledge of the organization. We feel that he could contribute in a constructive way to the work of the Staff Pension Committee as successor of Mr. Ramadhar.

M. TKRULJA (Yugoslavia): First of all, we simply could not miss this opportunity to place on record our gratitute to Mr. Ramadhar, former Permanent Representative of India to FAO, for his very active service in the Committee.

We want to second wholeheartedly the proposed replacement of Mr. Ramadhar, and we are positive that Mr. Glistrup, Permanent Representative of Denmark to the FAO, would be an excellent choice and would certainly match the very high record of Mr. Ramadhar in the Committee.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for seconding the nomination.

M. KRIESBERG (United States of America): We too would like to second the nomination of the distin­guished representative from Denmark for this important additional role within the relationships with FAO.

CHAIRMAN: Any other member wishing to take the floor? Otherwise, I take it that we unanimously elect Mr. Glistrup, Permanent Representative of Denmark, to the vacancy caused by the relocation of Mr. Ramadhar until the end of December 1983, the unexpired portion of Mr. Ramadhar's term. We record our appreciation of the very valuable services rendered by Mr. Ramadhar and we shall look forward to Mr. Glistrup on the Committee, because as I said on another occasion, we want to salute those who are willing to serve on such Committees because they give their time for an important cause, and we are very grateful, we welcome Mr. Glistrup.

A. F. B0THNER (Norway) : I would also like briefly to comment on this item, more precisely on one particular aspect of it. It appears from the document, as was just pointed out by France, that the next meeting of the Council is scheduled to take place from June 20 to July 1. I also draw your attention to the fact that the Ninth Session of the World Food Council will be convened at UN Headquarters in New York from 27 to 30 June 1983. Thus, there is a direct collision between the time for the two meetings of these two most important bodies, and this will create great difficulties for Governments, inasmuch as naturally the same officials are in charge of representation in the two Councils. For instance, myself, I am the Rapporteur of the World Food Council and naturally should be there. I had also planned to take part in the next FAO Council meeting, but generally speaking, this collision of the two meetings is rather unfortunate and it should be avoided, and hopefully it is still possible to make the necessary arrangements.

P.S. McLEAN (United Kingdom): Like my French and Norwegian colleagues who have just spoken, I view the situation to which they have referred with regard to the June meetings with some dismay. I noted some time ago that the proposed date for the Eighty-third Council clashed with the dates set for the Ninth Meeting of WFC in New York at the invitation of the UN Secretary-General, and I raised this matter with the appropriate division of FAO and suggested further consideration might be given.

On a purely practical point which has been referred to already by my Norwegian colleague, many Permanent Representatives in Rome are responsible for their Government's relations with all the Rome-based institutions of the UN, and their presence at FAO Council meetings, particularly when the Programme of Work and Budget is to be discussed at the June Session, in seen by most Members as essential.

Equally, many Ministers expect their Permanent Representatives to be available as advisors at the ministerial sessions of the World Food Council, and indeed, observer nations like my own on the Council, frequently ask their Permanent Secretaries to represent them. As an example, at the last Eighth Session of the WFC in Acapulco, nearly 40 Permanent Representatives from Rome were present.

For this reason, I would like to support my Norwegian colleague and my French colleague in asking whether further consideration could be given to this very unfortunate clash of dates in June.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I wish to recall paragraph 1.6 of the report of the 43rd Session of the Programme Committee where it states: "The Committee discussed the need to reorganize the calendar of sessions, including the Regional Conference, in a more convenient way. The calendar should enable Government Representatives and Secretariat Members to attend the Sessions whenever required to do so. This would inter alia imply coordination of meetings of different agencies in Rome".

Here I feel that the Programme Committee was also somewhat uneasy about the possibility of clashes, and I would like to support what speakers before me have voiced on this issue.

Perhaps it might be useful that we are thinking that a change or a shift to be made. We enquired in New York at UN Headquarters whether another date could be found for the World Food Council Session, but we were told that there was no room for a shift. Therefore my delegation would like to ask the Secretariat to do its best in order to advance the 83rd FAO Council session for the reasons already given so clearly by the speakers before me.

T. AHMAD (Pakistan): Basically we support the request or the suggestion by the delegates who have taken the floor this morning. We also find it would be very, very inconvenient if the two very important sessions were to clash, and logistically it would not be possible for member countries, particularly mine, to attend sessions - one in New York and one in Rome. I was looking at the membership of the World Food Council and the FAO Council: out of 49 and 36 memberships, 21 countries are members of both. So for these countries it would be very, very difficult to attend all those sessions.

I have instructions from my country to ensure that these sessions do not clash, and I believe under the basic rules the Council is competent to make adjustments in these dates.

CHAIRMAN: This is true as far as the adjustment is concerned, otherwise the item would not be for discussion at all.

H. CARANDANG (Philippines) : I would support the previous speakers in that we should find all ways and means to avoid the clash between these important meetings. My delegation attaches great importance to both meetings, and it would be a great difficulty for us if this was to happen.

I have another general comment to make on the way the meetings are arranged here. As the Director-General pointed out yesterday, the technical committees do provide an input to the work of the Programme of Work and Budget, therefore these technical committees should meet, in theory, before the last Council session which takes the decisions on the final form of the Programme of Work and Budget.

Nevertheless, if you look at the calendar of sessions you see that two very important technical committees like the CCP and COFI hold their meetings almost just before the Conference. The CCP is a very important technical committee, because all the commodity meetings - the grains, the rice, the hard fibres, the bananas, and all the commodity meetings - report to the CCP, but nevertheless, the CCP is not able to give an input to the previous Council because of this point.

I believe probably at this stage it is not possible any more to effect this change, but I think this should be taken into account at future meetings,because then the work of two years is not taken adequately into account in the work of programming, since the CCP meets only every two years and all the commodity meetings there are reported to this Committee.

M. KRIESBERG (United States of America): I would just like to add our concern along the lines that have already been expressed by colleagues concerning the conflict of several meetings with our own FAO Council meeting scheduled for the latter part of June, as it is now. Not only does it affect the permanent representatives in Rome but it also affects the work of some of us who are more or less permanent in our capitals and concerned similarly in assisting with the preparations for the various meetings of the several organizations headquartered here in Rome, and hence we too would appreciate it if it were possible to alter the dates of the very important coming FAO Council meeting, either along the lines suggested by my good friend from Colombia or any other time the Council can agree upon.

CHAIRMAN: In view of the unanimous request of delegates, because the next Council session is exceedingly important as we are going to discuss the Programme of Work and Budget - and the other day the delegate of Brazil particularly drew attention to the importance of Council giving as much concentrated attention as possible to the Programme of Work and Budget - there are two alternatives.

Mr. West has suggested postponing to the end of June, which would be too late from the point of view of preparation for the Conference. The other suggestion is to start on the 14th and complete by the 24th or so; on the 27th the World Food Council is meeting. I have only heard one delegate, the delegate of France, include the whole of June for UNCTAD meetings. The others did not mention it. Obviously some adjustments will have to be made, and if delegates would agree to the dates of June 13th, Monday, until the 24th, Friday, those who are going from Rome to New York could leave over the weekend. Would this be satisfactory?

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: The delegate of Colombia is quite right. The problem about the earlier date in June is that there will be very little time for the reports of the Programme and Finance Committees on the Programme of Work and Budget to be finalized and distributed to member governments and to members of the committees so that they would have adequate time to study the summary Programme of Work and Budget.

On the other hand, it is not really feasible to put the Programme and Finance Committees back to an earlier date, as the Programme of Work and Budget has to be prepared after this Council, and has to be circulated in advance of the Programme and Finance Committees.

Furthermore, to put it back would make the Programme and Finance Committees conflict with the Committee on Food Security. This is why when we proposed this timetable at the Council after the Conference, it was adopted, because it was seen that otherwise there would not be sufficient time. Unfortunately, the World Food Council, which is supposed, inter alia, to be a coordinating body, did not consult us at all before deciding their dates. Our dates were already decided by you at the Council after the Conference. -It is not a question of setting a date which conflicts with the World Food Council, but vice versa, so perhaps when permanent representatives go to the World Food Council they could make their dates coordinate with us when setting their dates.

However, I think July is out of the question because then we would run into trouble in advance in preparing for the Conference the Programme of Work and Budget and other matters which are dealt with by the Council. It would also, as one delegate said, be unbearably hot during that period, which is why the Council has traditionally avoided July.

I do not think we can take any note either of UNCTAD. I do not think many delegates here are involved with that. If we take note of everybody in which people might be interested, we should have nothing left for ourselves, so I think the only solution is to go for an earlier date in June knowing there will be complaints that people have not had the Report of the Programme and Finance Committees very long in their hands before having to consider them.

CHAIRMAN: I think we have now decided that the next meeting of the Council will take place in Rome from June 13 to 24, and we will record also in our proceedings that we regret that the World Food Council did not take note of our dates - since after all our schedule is decided much in advance, at Conference time - but whatever it is, it is adopted now, and we have come to an agreement.

I agree with the other points which have been made, like the meetings of the CCP and COFI and so on, but obviously now it is too difficult, in fact impossible, to re-arrange everything. We note the comments made by Members today and we can use them in subsequent arrangements of this meeting. The delegate of Colombia emphasized the need for the proceedings of the Programme and Finance Committees to be finalized as quickly as possible. We hope that with the help of the Chairmen sitting here, we will be able to do it.

So, with this particular change, shall we adopt the Schedule of Meetings?

CHAIRMAN: Members may recall that after detailed discussion on this topic last week we set up a contact group to go into this question and report tò us. The members of the.Contact Group established by the Council are Cameroon, Colombia, France with assistance from the EEC, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, United States of America and Yugoslavia. However, you may recall that the United States Delegate said that it was not possible for him to serve as-a member of the Contact Group so we accepted his request to be left out. Therefore, the United States did not participate, but France was assisted by the following representatives: the European Economic Commission, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and the Federal Republic of Germany.

I now give the floor to Professor Nurul Islam to explain the work of the Contact Group, how many times they met and who participated, and also to explain the document which is before us.

N. ISLAM (Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Policy Department): I have the pleasure to present to the Council the report of the Contact Group which the Council - as you have just stated, Mr. Chairman - set up under agenda item 6, Revision and Updating of Guidelines and Targets for International Agricultural Adjustment. At this stage, I would like to remind the Council about a corrigendum which has been distributed this morning relating to Guideline 10. There was some mistake which has now been corrected and a corrigendum was issued this morning; this mistake related to the fifth sentence of the Guidelines, which has now been corrected. In addition, I would like to point out there are two mistakes in the French text of Guideline 11: three words were omitted in the French translation in the seventh line from the end, and one word was also omitted when reference was made to 300,000 tons of dairy products. These corrections will be made in the French translation by the Secretariat.

Now, coming back to the document, the terms of reference of the Contact Group were to review the draft revised Guidelines as set out in document CL 82/29. These, as you know, were the product of the Government Consultation held last year, but they still contain a number of square brackets or formulations on which full consensus was not reached. The Contact Group therefore concentrated on trying to resolve the differences which were contained in the square brackets; in other words, formulations on which consensus could not be reached earlier. They did not touch or discuss those Guidelines or those parts of the other Guidelines on which consensus was reached last year at the Government Consultation, except in one or two places; and I shall explain which are those cases.

In Guideline 10, they discussed one element which had to be brought up to date and this related to the decision of the International Monetary Fund. In the original formulation, at the time of the Government Consultation, it was stated that the International Monetary Fund "should consider" etc. By now, of course, the International Monetary Fund has already decided, so that the formula­tion had to be brought up to date. It was a factual updating.

The second element which the Contact Group discussed in the light of the new developments related to the International Emergency Food Reserve, on which I shall say a few words later.

The Group met five times and went over each of the Guidelines, the alternative formulations in each of the Guidelines, wherever they existed, very carefully, trying to resolve the differences. It was not an easy assignment. There were some twenty-five square brackets in the draft Guideline; while some of these reflected only minor differences of views, others referred to key components. Indeed in one case, Guideline 12, the draft was in the form of two separate formulations of the whole Guideline, not just one or two of its components.

A spirit of cooperation and readiness to compromise did, however, prevail throughout the meetings of the Contact Group. It was only because of this constructive attitude that the Group was able to complete its work within the limited time available. I am very happy to report to you that the final draft as decided by the Contact Groups did reach a consensus on a whole set of revised Guidelines, with one square bracket only, and this is Guideline 10. This does not reflect a divergence of views. This square bracket has been inserted only because the Contact Group thinks that the FAO Conference will need to reconsider the existing text, so as to take into account possible developments relating to the Guidelines in question between now and its next Session.

This particular comment relates to Guideline 10 on the question of the International Emergency Food Reserve. There is only one square bracket, and it reads as follows: Early consideration should be given for the proposals for strengthening the Reserve. On that part there was no disagreement, or even On the latter part there was no disagreement, but a comment was made - in square brackets: "Including the possibility of making a legally binding convention with provision for increasing the size of the Reserve so as to meet future emergency needs." - and the footnote says: "This part of the Guideline will need to be reconsidered by the FAO Conference in the light of the review of the performance of the Reserve at future sessions of the Committee on Food Aid Policies and Programmes."

This was in view of the fact that this is already under consideration of the CFA, so it does not reflect any difference of view, but a reference to the need for reconsidering it. In addition, the Contact Group made an explanatory comment or statement on Guideline 7, which the Contact Group wanted to be recorded in the Report of the Council. This was not, again, a difference of view, nor a reservation, nor a suggestion for a change in Guideline 7. It is just to remind the Conference next year, when it takes up the adoption of the Guidelines in 1983, to see what changes have taken place in the meanwhile. The comment made by the Contact Group is as follows: that the Guidelines should be referred - this is number seven - to the FAO Conference, taking into consideration results which might be achieved with regard to trade in specialized fora of the United Nations system, including GATT and the UNCTAD.

Therefore, with these remarks on behalf of the Contact Group, I present its Report for your decision as to the next step.

CtíAIRMAN: I would like to record our sincere appreciation to the members of the Contact Group - they have met five times and worked hard - and to Professor Nurul Islam.

KONG CANDONG (China) (Original language Chinese): At the outset we would like to express our thanks to Ambassador Bula Hoyos for the support he expressed for our proposals. At the same time we would like to express our appreciation for the work done by the Contact Group.

The Chinese delegation would like to support the idea put forward by Professor Islam just now to submit the draft guidelines to the next session of the FAO Conference as a basis for further consider­ation . However, we think that the draft still leaves something to be desired, that is its ultimate goal is not clearly stated. As you may recall, we put forward our suggestion in writing to the Contact Group that the end of guideline 1, the phrase "with a view to promoting the establishment of a new international economic order" be inserted. By reiterating our position here we by no means intend to reopen the debate on this issue but wish that with this revision the document will appear more complete.

We consider that this is a question of great' importance because first the establishment of a new international economic order is unmistakeably spelt out in the declaration and Programme of Action adopted at the Sixth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly held in 1974 which has been generally accepted by the international community. Secondly, the establishment of anew international economic order is the inevitable trend of the development of the current international situation and the international economic development in recent years has proved that this establishment should no longer remain a slogan but has become a matter of urgency and therefore should be translated into action. Thirdly, as the current session of the United Nations General Assembly is discussing the question of starting global negotiations aimed at setting up a new international economic order we ought to seize this opportunity and incorporate the problem of food and agriculture in the agenda for global negotiations. Consequently we suggest that the full text of guideline 1 in the draft and our proposed amendment be included in brackets for considera­tion by all Member Nations of this Organization during the next Session of the FAO Conference. We hope that in the light of their deliberations a final version will be worked out.

M. ZJALIC (Yugoslavia): We would like to place on record our support for the substance of the statement of the Chinese delegation concerning the new international economic order.

Our understanding is that those guidelines basically stem from internationally agreed documents, among which international development strategy represents the most comprehensive set of targets and measures, all of them aimed at substantial change or improvement in international economic relations and particularly in the position of developing countries in these relations.

Practically international development strategy leads to the establishment of a new international economic order. In drafting in the Contact Group we felt that there was no need to keep agreed targets or basic documents unless they have operational value, unless they are applicable in the section of food agriculture national and international policy immediately or directly.

Mention was given in the statement of the Chinese delegation to the global negotiations. I, of course, agree very much with their position concerning globalnegotiations but I would like to add our full support and agreement with the statement of the Pakistan delegation during our discussion on the state of food and agriculture when the Pakistan delegate emphasized, first of all, the need for global negotiations to be started as soon as possible but also warned that there are so many agreed targets and measures which are needed to be undertaken before global negotiations start and which can be included in the process of implementation of international development strategies after global negotiations.

One thing more, the proposal for the new square brackets, it seemed to me more appropriate to place the Chinese statement in the report to the Conference so the Conference may discuss it equally with other positions expressed at this Council and in other fora.

M.. KRIESBERG (United States of America) : Our delegation appreciates the efforts of the Contact Group. We do take seriously these efforts and indeed, the kind of moral guidelines intended but as we had indicated earlier on our instructions give us really no option in terms of our parti­cipation and we are glad therefore that the Chairman duly noted that we did not participate in the Contact Group. There are references in the text indicating reservations that the United States had. It should be said that they were reservations which came out of the previous text, although they are probably relevant to the current text.

Our delegation will, of course, take this new document back with us for United States agencies concerned to give it the attention that it merits. But I should add, perhaps on a personal note, that as a delegate who helped in drafting the 1975 guidelines for international Agricultural Adjustment," I am not saying anything about the receptivity we will find for new guidelines.

Our delegation would prefer for this Contact Group text to be forwarded to perhaps the next meeting of the CCP rather than go directly to the Conference because the Conference, of course, is a large and somewhat amorphous body ill-suited for consideration of the kind of text that we are talking about here.

II. CARANDANG (Philippines): My delegation would like to support the proposal made by the delegate of Colombia that this report of the Contact Group be transmitted to the Conference for its consider­ation. We realize that the result of the work of the Contact Group is a delicate balance, a result of give and take. Not everyone has been fully satisfied with the text, but in the spirit of compromise this is the best that could have been achieved. For example, we support the amendment of the delegate
of China and we would have liked to see it in the text but it was not possible to do so, given the present circumstances. We therefore would appreciate that such a comment be included in the transmittal of this report of the Contact Group to the Conference and should be given due consideration and impor­tance when taken up at the Conference.

T. AHMAD (Pakistan): First we wish to convey our appreciation to all the Members of the Contact Group and to Professor Nurul Islam for all the hard work that they put in to come up with a commendable and acceptable text.

We have only one or two points to suggest. First, we support the proposal that this text should now be transmitted to the Conference. In this context I would like to draw the attention of my colleague from the United States of America to the fact that it would be futile to send it to the CCP again. First, the Council is the bigger body and CCP is a technical body which would be concerned with only one, or at the most two, guidelines instead of the 12. If you do that you will have to send it to all the technical committees of FAO. So I think it is logical that the guidelines should be trans­mitted to the Conference.

As a sideline, the delegate of the United States of America suggested that the comments on the previous text of the United States delegation may still be relevant, but I would draw his attention to the comment at the bottom of Guideline 8, which says that the United States has a reservation on this guideline, noting that the new Administration had not yet formulated its commodity policy. I do not know whether it is still relevant because the Administration is now an old administration.

We support wholeheartedly the proposal of the delegate of China. We feel that the amendment suggested by the Chinese delegation, if it were incorporated at the end of Guideline 1, which was suggested, would bring into balance Guideline 1 and give it a proper focus and substance. If it were added at the end of the last sentence it would be bringing the whole thing into a proper perspective. As the delegate of France said, in all the United Nations fora this is the desire of most of the internation­al community, that we should be promoting a new International Economic Order. So it would be abso­lutely relevant to include that in our first guideline. We also feel this is more important and relevant because in the first few days when we were discussing the state of food and agriculture we discovered that, despite a much better harvest, there were lots of hungry people. More than one delegate said that what is needed is to have a look at the Economic Order of the world so that the hungry can be fed.

V. ISARANKURA (Thailand): First I would like to join the previous speakers to thank the members of the Contact Group and Professor Islam for their excellent work.

Secondly, my delegation too is not happy with some Guidelines, but we can go along with the other distinguished delegates in adopting the Guidelines proposed by the Contact Group and submit them to the next Conference. This is because we realise the spirit of compromise is very important in so large an organization as FAO.

P. GOSSELIN (Canada): Certainly I would like to join my colleagues in. congratulating those who participated in the Contact Group. However, without prejudice to the content of the document, we would very much like to know the status that such a document will have and how it will be transmitted forward. We wonder, somewhat like the United States, whether transmitting the document directly to the Conference will have the desired effect. We for our part, not having had the opportunity to transmit the documents to our authorities and therefore get their views and provide an opportunity for them to comment, wonder whether transmitting it directly to Conference is not going to be counterproductive. The Conference being such a large body, it is very difficult for it to negotiate this kind of . document. Would it not be useful to send the document forward to the next Council for some opportunity for discussion at that point and then on to Conference?

Y.A. HAMDI (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): The Egyptian delegation would firstly like to express its thanks to Dr. Islam and to the members of the Contact Group for the great efforts they have made in the preparation of this new text of the Guidelines and to thank them for their excellent work. We would support the proposal made by the Ambassador of Colombia, as well as those of our other colleagues who have taken the floor earlier in their suggestion that the Council approve this report and transmit it directly to the General Conference.

S.M. MATIUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh): First of all, my delegation would like to thank the Contact Group and Dr. Islam for the excellent work done and the hard work they put into completing a very difficult task in a very short time. It proves that no problem is insoluble if it is dealt with in a spirit of compromise and accommodation.

My delegation shares the views of my distinguished colleagues that it would be more appropriate to present this document to the next Session of the Conference, because that Conference is a higher body than this body and it will not be appropriate to go to the CCP because it is a lower body.

My delegation also shares the view of China that one clause should be introduced giving importance to the document.

N. KISHORE (India): My delegation fully supports the Draft Guidelines suggested by the Contact Group after reaching a consensus. When the FAO had put this item on the agenda of this Council, there was clear intention that the Guidelines as endorsed by this Council would be submitted to the FAO Conference for consideration and approval.

Also, while sending the Guidelines to the Contact Group, there was clear understanding that after elimination of the square brackets by the Contact Group the Draft Guidelines would be transmitted to the Conference; As the CCP is the technical subsidiary body of the Council and is lower than the Council, it would not be appropriate to send the Guidelines back to the CCP for consideration.

AMIDJONO MARTOSUWIRYO (Indonesia): The Indonesian delegation would like to express appreciation to Dr. Islam and the Contact Group for its excellent work done. As stated by the Philippines, the work is very difficult and nobody is fully satisfied with the result. The Indonesian delegation associates itself with the view that the Draft Guidelines be submitted directly to the Conference as it is. Any comments or the insertion of new elements can be covered in the transmittal letter.

CHAIRMAN: Are there any other delegates that wish to speak? If not, let me try to summarize what I consider to be the broad consensus which has emerged from about 18 interventions by the delegations.

Number one is the Chinese suggestion regarding the introduction of a statement that the whole objective of this exercise is to promote the establishment of a New International Economic Order. I think the general feeling is that the Contact Group has considered the suggestion and has developed a consensus document, so at this stage we should not do anything with the document itself, but in the note which is submitted to the Conference, the point made by China, the US and so on, that a preambular statement could be introduced along with this, is a good one, as you know from our previous document, CL 82/29, which describes the previous history of this whole exercise starting with the Intergovernmental Consultation from 2 to 6 March 1981, where some of the reservations which are included here under the title "comment" came from the original document. Since then there has been this continuous exercise. In 1979, the Conference asked us to report back, so I would suggest that we introduce in the forwarding document to the Conference a summary of some of the points made, particularly the Chinese suggestion, which I find has been widely supported by other delegations.

The second point is whether it should go to CCP or to the Conference, and I think a majority of Members have expressed the view it should now go to the Conference, because the Conference asked us to go into this in 1979, and the 1983 Conference will be four years away from 1979. Therefore, I suggest that we transmit this document as it is with all the comments, with a preambular statement, to the next Conference for its adoption. I am sure when it is submitted to the Conference - there is still a year from now for the Governments to consider this document - if still there is no unanimity, whoever is the Chairman of the Commission concerned will develop a methodology during the Conference, again maybe a contact Group or a sub-Group to iron out some differences. I do not think we should postpone this matter further, so I recommend for your consideration two steps: we include the Chinese suggestion in forwarding the statement to the Conference so that the delegates will have this particular proposal before them, and the other points made by both Professor Islam and the United States we will include in forwarding the Secretariat notes. But we submit it as it is; as the Contact Group has produced the document, we submit it to the Conference for its adoption.

Will this be acceptable to you? Well, then, I thank you very much, it is very nice of you. We want once again to place ourselves on record in a tribute to the Members of the Contact Group and to Professor Islam, who has been working very hard all through not only during this meeting, but from March 1981 he has been here and he and his colleagues have worked very hard on this problem. We want to thank the Director-General and his very able staff for the work they have done.